battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Policy on Canvassing and Campaigning
23:35, December 18, 2013 (UTC) Discussion *'Support' - as nominator - 23:35, December 18, 2013 (UTC) :How about we actually have a discussion, rather than trying to force policies through? Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:42, December 18, 2013 (UTC) ::You have every opportunity to express your opinion during the course of this discussion and vote. Instead of doing so, you've decided to post an entirely unhelpful post that offers no insight into your opinion on the matter whatsoever. Going straight to a vote and clearly outlining when it ends is purely for the purposes of avoiding a "neverendum". It is impossible to count how many suggestions have simply fallen by the wayside and died once interest subsides without any decisive conclusion either way. When I propose something, I'd rather it be shot down than forgotten and left to rot. - 23:47, December 18, 2013 (UTC) :::Oh, yeah, because I haven't made it clear already? Trying to silence discourse is paramount to tyranny and shouldn't be allowed. Our current blocking policy handles threats and the like; don't try to be like the NSA, bond. It's none of your business what any of us do or don't talk about off-wiki, whether it involves this place or not. And I'm sure as hell not going to abide you that; if I want to try and convince a friend or colleague one way or another I won't necessarily do it here when other options are far faster for the purpose. :::And again, you should give the other Wikians a chance to posit changes or additions rather than attempting to force your version through. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:56, December 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::Complete overreaction, entirely unconstructive and frankly offensive at times. Well done! Aside from the fact I have no idea where you are getting some of these suggestions - and most aren't even worth my time replying to - everyone has the chance to comment, suggest changes and oppose it if they wish. I have at no point tried to 'silence discourse', I have suggested regulations to prevent abuse of the voting system. You have the right to voice your opinion on every proposal and my proposal explicitly states that you still have every right to legitimately discuss whatever you want, wherever you want - just not the right to influence the outcomes of votes by intimidation or corrupt methods. If it's so awful, feel free to make even a vague attempt to be constructive on the matter... - 00:14, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::So you've gone and completely inverted your position from the achievements forum? What happened to "one can make one's case here", and the whole thing about disagreeing on being able to make our case elsewhere? ::::: :::::Does this ring any bells? You only wrote it an hour or so ago. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:19, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::You must have better eyesight than me because I'm failing to see any contradiction between my proposal, this discussion, the achievements discussion or the quote above. You can discuss anything anywhere, but you should not be permitted to harass people anywhere in an attempt to get them to vote a specific way. - 00:24, December 19, 2013 (UTC) ::::::It looks as if you just completely misinterpreted my position on the other forum. You said you wholeheartedly disagreed when we both apparently agree here. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:37, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::::After an hour of nonconstructive arguments and accusations of tyranny, you might have to remind me exactly what it is you agree with - because as far as I can see, you don't seem to agree with this policy proposal, despite making no effort to suggest improvements to it. - 00:42, December 19, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::All I said on the other forum was essentially that we should be allowed to discuss wherever we want. You said you "wholeheartedly disagree", which would infer you only wanted us to talk about it here (which goes back to the quote). The bit about "stealth canvassing" still reeks of that sort of sentiment, and harassment is already covered under CoC, so I find that part unnecessary and redundant. ::::::::And, hopefully you now understand why being falsely accused is frustrating. Don't implicitly brand me, get rid of the "some" part of the OP, because Tywin's bully tactics have nothing to do with me. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:49, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::With respect, I think the Stealth Canvassing section does what I intended it to do without infringing upon anybody's liberties. In fact, I was very reluctant to even word it as it is as I still fundamentally disagree with discussion of on-site issues in an off-site environment - the only reason I can see for discussing in private rather than public is if you want to hide what you are saying. :::::::::However, I recognise that opinion may be seen as unreasonable, so I left clear provision, which I have referred back to many times, allowing "discusion" (expression of opinions) anywhere, but banning "campaigning" (encouraging others to vote the way you want them to, note that there is a difference), especially when it is spamming or harassing in nature. The nature of off-wiki chat means that this is hard to police, hence conversation here would be preferable. However, I have reluctantly altered the wording to allow for discussion elsewhere as long as it is otherwise acceptable. :::::::::If you have any suggestions for clarifying the difference between discussion and campaigning, I would be glad to hear them as I appreciate it may be somewhat vague at the moment - 01:10, December 19, 2013 (UTC) (Unindenting) Campaigning in the US has a very specific meaning related to the rallying of support for a candidate during election season. It includes making speeches, hosting charities and functions, and making deals with major lobbies and corporations, as well as appealing to the grass-roots. Debate or argument (in the classical sense) would be a more appropriate terminology because that's what you're actually talking about. There's another term (related to the idea of gerrymandering) that is even more appropriate, but it's slipping my mind. An ulterior motive isn't necessarily required — I sometimes bring up stuff because it's there, we're both on, and I want to talk. It's like if a coworker and I talked about wages during our break. I almost never go in with the express intent of swaying another's opinion, it usually just comes up as part of natural conversation. So having a discussion off-wiki doesn't entail a desire to keep it a secret. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 01:37, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :I can accept that reasoning, hence why I have compromised regarding off-site discussion as long as there is no complaints of spamming, intimidation or harrassment. You've nicely outlined the difference - people should be free to express their opinions whenever and wherever, but that should not be allowed to amount to rallying support for their cause. In many cases, it is at that point where undue influence and intimidation begin, without that even necessarily being intentional. - 01:47, December 19, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 01:54, December 19, 2013 (UTC) ::I'm glad you came around. Feel free to propose any more changes to avoid further confusion between us, or anyone else. - 01:58, December 19, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - -- 02:05, December 19, 2013 (UTC) *'Support '- I wish this was in the US govt. 03:15, December 19, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - Democracy. 18:06, December 19, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - 20:41, December 19, 2013 (UTC) Passed 6-0. Policy amended accordingly. - 02:23, December 22, 2013 (UTC) }}